I've always said the RPI is hot garbage, so this new formula can't be worse. Will definitely be interesting to see how it works in practice, especially when comparing teams across conferences, which is quite important and also hard to do given the poor OOC schedules with games against other teams from power conference few and far between.

I like how they adding offensive and defensive efficiency metrics. But we all know (or should know) that RPI, or any metric for that matter, does NOT put somebody in the tournament or guarantee a seeding (as ColoradoBear so eloquently put it). That is done by committee.

The primary purpose of the rating is to create drama that can be monitored, analyzed and discussed throughout the entire season by everyone following NCAA basketball. It's fun, and there is a strong correlation between rankings and seeding (invitation), but it is nothing much more than that.

Interesting that they will use stats like offensive and defensive efficiency as opposed to things that just have to do with the results of games.

It also sounds like there is an absolute cutoff for margin of victory at 10 points, as opposed to a more sensible diminishing value to margin of victory that turns to zero at something higher than 10.

All that said, RPI is a pretty terrible tool, compared to so many other methods of statistical rankings. I hope that the new formula will make it much harder to game the system in scheduling, and will be a much better indicator of quality of teams, it seems extremely improbable that it will be worse than RPI.

I think the big issue with RPI was it only looked at win loses But if I understand it right, didn't factor in that a team played against stronger teams

Therefore playing in the big west was the same as playing in the Big 10 ...

Big C said:

RPI can be useful, as long as it's used in combination with a number of other measures. As the dominant metric, like it was 10 yrs or so ago: ridiculous

It's almost impossible to have rigid criteria/measures, just like it is impossible when ranking universities.

RPI also took into account apponent W/L, but not THEIR strength of schedule. Playing a strong team from a lower division or weak league was better than playing an equally good team from a power league (with a worse record).

I think the big issue with RPI was it only looked at win loses But if I understand it right, didn't factor in that a team played against stronger teams

Therefore playing in the big west was the same as playing in the Big 10 ...

Big C said:

RPI can be useful, as long as it's used in combination with a number of other measures. As the dominant metric, like it was 10 yrs or so ago: ridiculous

It's almost impossible to have rigid criteria/measures, just like it is impossible when ranking universities.

RPI also took into account apponent W/L, but not THEIR strength of schedule. Playing a strong team from a lower division or weak league was better than playing an equally good team from a power league (with a worse record).

Sure it does, by taking into account the opponents' opponent's win-loss record with the same weight it takes on the teams' win-loss record.

RPI = 25% W/L Record + 50% Opponent's W/L Record + 25% Opponents' Opponent's W/L Record, with factors built in for home court and away wins and losses.

RPI's flaw is that it gives Strength of Schedule too much weight. That's why Clemson was able to make the tourney a few years back with a .500 win/loss record, and why teams from lower divisions or weak leagues can't earn a high enough RPI to qualify for the tourney with an at-large bid regardless of their win/loss record.

I think the big issue with RPI was it only looked at win loses But if I understand it right, didn't factor in that a team played against stronger teams

Therefore playing in the big west was the same as playing in the Big 10 ...

Big C said:

RPI can be useful, as long as it's used in combination with a number of other measures. As the dominant metric, like it was 10 yrs or so ago: ridiculous

It's almost impossible to have rigid criteria/measures, just like it is impossible when ranking universities.

RPI also took into account apponent W/L, but not THEIR strength of schedule. Playing a strong team from a lower division or weak league was better than playing an equally good team from a power league (with a worse record).

Sure it does, by taking into account the opponents' opponent's win-loss record with the same weight it takes on the teams' win-loss record.

RPI = 25% W/L Record + 50% Opponent's W/L Record + 25% Opponents' Opponent's W/L Record, with factors built in for home court and away wins and losses.

RPI's flaw is that it gives Strength of Schedule too much weight. That's why Clemson was able to make the tourney a few years back with a .500 win/loss record, and why teams from lower divisions or weak leagues can't earn a high enough RPI to qualify for the tourney with an at-large bid regardless of their win/loss record.

Bingo....exactly right...The P5 teams had control of ALL the at large bids due to strength of schedule by playing the majority of their games in conference....

What? They are going to use o and d efficiency stats?Omg.Now if you are ahead by 25 at half, you cannot mail it in with your bench getting minutes.You'll be incentivized to win by 55!

And that's a really bad turn.

That's not the way it works...re-read CT...margin is capped at 10...I don't know how you missed this....

O and D efficiency stats would be different than Margin of Victory (up to 10 points).When someone says "capped at 10 points", I presume that efficiency stats could be Yards Per Play. If a coach is interested in Yards Per Play but not points, well, maybe they'll fumble at the 1.

LOL: are we talking about football or basketball?? I'm on the basketball board talking football.Someone must have spiked my cereal!

good article explaining new formula, with comments similar to my own concern that they are moving away from 'most deserving'

The NET will look beyond win/loss records, breaking every game down by possession, and factoring in where the game was played. It will value a blowout on the road more than a narrow escape at home.

The most rational qualm with the NET formula is the incorporation of predictive metrics such as offensive and defensive efficiency. They are useful for evaluating a team's true quality.

But sport, as long as it has existed, has been based on results wins and losses. The NET will help the committee judge who the better teams are. But better doesn't necessarily equate to most deserving, and many believe tournament selection should remain a reflection of which teams have earned bids/seeds by winning games, not by playing good basketball.

The "deserving vs better" argument gets pretty weak, once you get past the top 10. This is the NCAA tourney. We're talking about teams 65-75. Seriously, this probably has more to do with members of the selection committee having something different to talk about. Not too worried this is going to change how teams compete. Their drive to win still seems like the most powerful influence, by far.

The "deserving vs better" argument gets pretty weak, once you get past the top 10. This is the NCAA tourney. We're talking about teams 65-75. Seriously, this probably has more to do with members of the selection committee having something different to talk about. Not too worried this is going to change how teams compete. Their drive to win still seems like the most powerful influence, by far.

When I read that "deserving vs. better" part I thought great, now teams will need to come up with the best hard luck stories.

You mean you agree with Gloria from White Men Can't Jump....."Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. "

BeachedBear said:

The "deserving vs better" argument gets pretty weak, once you get past the top 10. This is the NCAA tourney. We're talking about teams 65-75. Seriously, this probably has more to do with members of the selection committee having something different to talk about. Not too worried this is going to change how teams compete. Their drive to win still seems like the most powerful influence, by far.

You mean you agree with Gloria from White Men Can't Jump....."Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. "

BeachedBear said:

The "deserving vs better" argument gets pretty weak, once you get past the top 10. This is the NCAA tourney. We're talking about teams 65-75. Seriously, this probably has more to do with members of the selection committee having something different to talk about. Not too worried this is going to change how teams compete. Their drive to win still seems like the most powerful influence, by far.

I would argue that if the new ranking system takes into account things like margin of victory and efficiency metrics, that will probably benefit the mid-major teams who piled up lots of wins but didn't have many impressive opponents, and devalue the major-conference teams who didn't win many games but had a great-looking schedule. In effect, it benefits the teams that got actual results.

I'm sure it won't be perfect, but this does seem like an improvement over the blunt instrument of RPI.

The most rational qualm with the NET formula is the incorporation of predictive metrics such as offensive and defensive efficiency. They are useful for evaluating a team's true quality.

But sport, as long as it has existed, has been based on results wins and losses. The NET will help the committee judge who the better teams are. But better doesn't necessarily equate to most deserving, and many believe tournament selection should remain a reflection of which teams have earned bids/seeds by winning games, not by playing good basketball.

If NET is "replacing" the way the committee used RPI, then "better" makes sense. That's because the committee, in recent years, has typically used many criteria (different ratings, number of quality wins, etc.) in addition to RPI in choosing the last few at-large teams, while relying primarily on RPI to seed the teams once they were chosen.

If NET's primary function is as a *seeding* tool and not as a sole *selection* tool, then, if NET measures "better" more than "deserving", that is more justifiable.